[2025] UKFTT 01129 (GRC)

In a decision notice dated 12 February 2025 the Commissioner decided that the School was not entitled to refuse to confirm or deny whether the requested information is held. He required the School to issue a fresh response to part 2 of the request that confirms or denies that the requested information is held and, if held, either discloses it, or provides a valid refusal notice according to section 17.

The Commissioner decided that confirming or denying that the requested information was held would disclose personal data. The Commissioner concluded that the headteacher was identifiable because he was named in the request, and confirming or denying that information was held would reveal information with biographical significance for the headteacher, namely whether or not he had been the subject of at least one complaint.

The Commissioner held that the requestor was pursuing a legitimate interest. He noted that the requestor had concerns about the conduct of the headteacher and that those concerns were shared by other members of the public. He noted that the headteacher was pursuing a claim for harassment against two individuals and that the School would be contributing to the headteacher’s legal fees. He said that there was a wider public interest in transparency and accountability given the significant sums of money involved. The Commissioner decided that understanding whether previous complaints had been made against the headteacher may help the public to understand why the School has agreed to make a financial contribution to the costs of litigation.

The Commissioner concluded that confirmation or denial was necessary for the purposes of a legitimate interest. He decided that there was a legitimate interest in understanding the information available to the School when it decided to provide financial support for litigation pursued by the headteacher, which would not automatically be made available to the requestor through other routes.

The Commissioner recognised that the wider circumstances of the request had caused the headteacher distress, and that the School’s confirmation or denial was likely to cause distress by bringing up the matter again. He found that the request related to circumstances that straddled both the headteacher’s professional role and professional life. He noted that the headteacher had not consented to disclosure of the requested information or confirmation or denial that the information is held.

The Commissioner accepted that the details being requested were not strictly in the public domain, but he concluded that a reasonable person could infer from the information in the public domain that such information would be held, because it is likely that the two respondents to the headteacher’s civil claim would have submitted at least one formal complaint. On this basis he concluded that, by confirming or denying that the information is held, the invasion of privacy was minimal. If the School were to deny holding the information, he concluded that would provide important context to the headteacher’s civil claim and the School’s decision to provide funding support for that claim.

Whilst acknowledging the emotive circumstances surrounding the request, the Commissioner considered the distress, and consequences, of the School confirming or denying that the information is held, would be limited due to the significant amount of information, about the headteacher and the School, that was already in the public domain.

The Commissioner said that a legitimate interest was being pursued where a significant amount of public money was being spent, by the School, on the headteacher’s civil claim. Whether justified or not, he said that this money is either money that cannot be spent educating children or money that must be re-raised by the School to ensure no detriment to its pupils.

The Commissioner concluded that in this case the need for transparency overrides the privacy rights of the headteacher. He found that confirmation or denial would be compliant with principle (a) (which appears to be a reference to Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulation) and the requirement that personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject) and accordingly found that section 40(5B) of FOIA was not engaged. He required the School to issue a fresh response that confirms or denies whether the information is held and, if held, either discloses it or provides a valid refusal notice according to section 17 FOIA.